Transportation Demand Management (TDM) at Residential Locations Preliminary Findings
The Client The California Air Resources Board (ARB) protects public health and wellbeing through the reduction of air pollution. As the agency responsible for SB 375 implementation, ARB seeks new information on strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable communities. TDM at residential buildings is one such promising strategy.
• Transportation amenities are exceedingly rare at downtown L.A. residential buildings, and TDM programs are nonexistent among the buildings surveyed. • Despite a “TDM first” policy, LADOT rarely requires TDM as a mitigation measure for residential development. Most residential projects do not generate traffic impacts that warrant mitigation. • Downtown L.A. developers and property managers do not perceive that transportation amenities are a factor in where residents choose to live.
The Premise Transportation demand management (TDM) improves accessibility and mobility at minimal environmental and fiscal cost compared to expanding road capacity. TDM policies rarely focus on residential locations, however. Given the precedent set by workplace TDM programs, can transportation amenities at residential developments play a similarly catalytic role?
The Goal This project seeks to understand the extent to which building owners and property managers consider and pursue transportation amenities and/or TDM programs. The project seeks to understand the impetus for these programs, their barriers to implementation, and their perceived effectiveness at reducing single-occupant vehicle (SOV) travel.
• For-profit downtown L.A. developers and property managers state that nearly all of their residents (90% and higher) request parking spaces, even if unbundled. • Walkability/proximity to destinations is itself a significant transportation amenity. Downtown residents walk to work, to restaurants, and to stores. • Transportation amenities serve different groups and needs. Subsidized transit passes may enable trip-making by low-income populations, while car sharing may reduce single-occupant vehicle trips by middle-income populations. • Individual buildings may not be the right scale to provide meaningful TDM. Programs that reduce travel demand can be even more effective when implemented on a neighborhood or citywide scale.
The Method I focus on downtown Los Angeles for my analysis. I conduct a literature review, a survey of residential buildings, a review of city planning documents, and follow-up interviews with building owners and property managers.
Figure 1. Parking Type (n=94)
Figure 2. Parking Availability (n=94)
No parking 21%
No Parking 21% Unbundled 44% Bundled 35%
Off-site 18%
On-site 61%
Amenities Surveyed Unbundled parking. On-site car sharing. Bike rentals. Discount transit passes. Transportation coordinator. Bicycle parking and storage.
on-‐site bike rental
Acknowledgements I am grateful for the guidance and input of Courtney Smith (ARB), Kristen Torres (formerly ARB), Leo Estrada, PhD (UCLA), and my faculty chair, Brian Taylor, PhD (UCLA).
Contact Info
MICHAEL W. SIN michaelwbsin@gmail.com